Superbelt, that's what a lot of my toys were designed for. Many of them don't have a provision for semi-automatic fire, they're full auto only. (They're all "papered", btw...) I figure that on a good range day I blow a thousand bucks plus just on ammo (by the palletload, I get surplus 8mm mauser for $.04 a round, but I shoot some other calibers too, which may run as much as $.10 a round). And we do sometimes shoot cars, boats, dishwashers, refrigerators, and sometimes 55 gallon drums of diesel fuel with dynamite strapped to it (we have to get a blasting permit for that, which is a pain in the ass, but "do-able", or we go to certain ranges where they have the permits already.)

Context may be key to honest understanding, but it appears to be frequently forgotten around here.

You do realize that 15K in 2 hrs. = average of 2 rounds per sec. for 2 hrs with no timeout to reload? Thats some quality range time there.

Um, where the hell is that legal?
Are you Colombian?

How OFTEN do you do this, blowing over $1k at a pass?

With my favorite gun, I can go through 600 rounds a minute for long periods of time, INCLUDING time to change barrels every 250 rounds, which takes under 5 seconds. It's ROF is a theoretical 900 rpm. On other guns, I can go through 600 rounds a minute indefinitely, until all of the water in the jacket and reservoir are gone. Another gun of mine that's magazine fed runs 1200 RPM.

It's one thing to go through that kind of ammo on a semi-auto gun that takes a magazine. It's an entirely different thing to do it with a belt-fed weapon that's water-cooled or air-cooled with a quick-change barrel.

daswig, where do you live?
What state, and are you in a city, suburbs or shack in the woods?

No, I'm not Columbian. Machineguns are legal in most of the country, and most of the country allows for issuance of blasting permits. Big cities don't, but they do here.

I dunno how often I go out, there's no set number. I do know that I generally buy palletloads of ammo 3-4 times a year. A palletload generally runs ~100K rounds of rifle ammo, considerably more for pistol ammo. The most ammo I've ever bought at one pop was 5 pallets of 8mm mauser, and that lasted me for a year, but it was a complete and total pain in the ass to move and store from the curb to the armory. I don't have a forklift, just a handtruck, so now I just do it one pallet at a time.

I'm in rural Virginia, within town limits. I have one entire floor of my 4 story house (~5000 sq.ft. total) set aside for guns and stuff, plus a separate building for really heavy stuff that I don't want to run on the staircases.

BTW, I often have people on the Internet say "BS" when I tell them about my shooting habits/toys. Down in the weapons forum, the Dunedan did that, so I took a pic of the first three guns out of the safe, slapped a caption thing on it, and fired it off. Here's the pic:

<img src="http://onfinite.com/libraries/90018/010.jpg" /img>

If you look at the gun on the left, you'll notice that it's a MG-34 fully automatic belt-fed weapon (my favorite toy) that shoots 900 rounds a minute theoretically. Do some research on the gun, and you'll understand that I'm not joking. It's a HUNGRY bitch to feed.

Once again, I'm a former SOT, and ALL of my stuff is legal.

Excellent news. I'm in California.

Yes, because, you know, daswig has a personal vendetta against you... :rolleyes:

You don't have to worry about someone that the law allows to have machine guns hosing you down with lead. You only have to worry about the gang bangers with their illegal machine guns making you an innocent bystander.

Cool. I've done a fair bit of business with SOTs (my left-coast counterparts) in California. I may not live by you, but odds are pretty good that somebody like me does. :thumbsup:

Excellent, I will contact you when the moment of revolution is at hand!

And to think I've been to lazy to get the .223 I was going to buy to teach my wife how to shoot, of course in the long run that might be a bad thing :lol:

To hell with riots, if Bush wins, we will be at more wars, spreading more havoc, killing more people. You would end up wishing for a riot instead.

And with Kerry we will put our heads back in the sand and fight a bigger war in the future to clean up the mess.

And we wouldn't have that with Kerry? i thought Kerry was a hawk, making big grumbling noises about Iran and North Korea because they have or are close to having nukes. You mean that ain't true???

Not necessarially, but at least his focus is on the right countries, ones who have or are pursuing WMD programs.

Bush was focused on Iraq and Syria, who have none.

Sorry, I'm planning on sitting out the revolution, unless it comes within my house's fields of fire looking like it wants to harm me and mine.

I'm very easy to live with as a neighbor. You do your thing, I'll do mine. But if you set foot on my land, you'd better have a damned good reason to be there, or you will be arrested (or worse, if the situation warrants it).

/never got into that whole "Dial 911 and die!" thing.

On a side note I am looking for a good starter weapon for my wife, I'll PM ya. I own no firearms and my thing was bows, but currently I'm am defenseless if you don't count my rapier wit.

LOL..... Now that is funny. In '88 noone believed Dukakis would win.Even when he was close Willie Blair and the tank picture didn't even make it close. And you want to compare this to that one. OK.

Plus in '88 the Dems knew that Bush would have to raise taxes and that there would be some form of economic turmoil. I campaigned in '88 and I know many many Dems. in Ohio that said they'd rather lose in '88 and win in '92 because they knew the economy was on a downturn.

As for the post..... sounded like a loaded question and I don't think Cheney or Bush would have answered much differently THEMSELVES let alone their wives. In fact given what Cheney HAS said in the past he would have promised riots if Bush didn't win (America will be attacked if Kerry is elected). To make this to be anymore than a loaded question and a no win answer situation that was a setup to try to scare and sway voters to Bush is total desperation.

But I will say after reading some righty's posts we may as well all just fucking buy guns and have a civil war right now. Some of you sound like you want to just start killing people who don't believe the way you do, so much for freedom and respecting differences, huh?

There's a considerable difference between saying "If we lose, our foreign enemies will attack us again" and saying "If we lose, our american supporters will riot". A terrorist attack is NOT a riot under any definition I've ever heard.

Once Kerry takes office, what makes you think you'll be able to buy guns? Remember this? <img src="http://keepandbeararms.com/images/Kerry004.jpg" img>

Those who have them will have them, and those who don't will not. Hey, that's OK with me, considering just how underarmed the Liberals are. Ever hear of the "Marianas turkey shoot"? Gun nuts against liberals....what kind of odds would a betting person give for such a civil war? Remember one of the gun nut's unofficial mottos: "We burn more ammo by ten AM than most third world countries do all day." Another favorite: "Vote from the rooftops". Another favorite: MOLON LABE!!! :icare:

I'll bet you a dollar most of them have to Google it and will feel it was a bad thing :)

As a side note, Kerry won't touch guns, hell he won't be able to (Republican congress hehe) but he won't do anything to prevent cities from pretending their laws > the bill of rights.

Ustwo, I'd bet, but I think that the Liberals who actually know what it was STILL will think it was a very bad thing. ;)

Republicans are not uniformly pro-gun. Take my own Senator John "Scumbag" Warner (R).

Yea, we have some sheep in wolves clothing out there, but as a rule most are pro gun ownership, and NO republican congress would dream of passing any gun law of substance. Added Kerry has tried SO hard to pretend he is a hunter I don't see him trying to undo that before 2008.

If he is smart he will have learned the Clinton lesson. Clinton was a flaming liberal for the first 2 years and he cost the democrats the house, which they held for 40 years. They can't afford that kind of mistake again or it will be the Republicans there for 40 years.

Gawd, I hope not. My best-case scenario is the house and senate evenly divided, with a third party President.

Either that, or for every new law passed, they have to repeal 2.

The more tied in knots our government is, the better off we are.

Indeed.

We have a whole forum for weapons - why is this thread located in Politics?

Where's a mod when you need them?

It's obvious that the intent of publically fantasizing about murdering ones political enemies is to shock. I'm not shocked, but I wish we could drop the false outrage when someone else uses such language. "Hate filled liberals" indeed.

Righties talk like this and wonder why a majority of the US wants to see some form of gun control.

Please quote the language that is "publicly fantasizing about murdering ones (sic) political enemies". I certainly haven't posted anything that fits that bill, and I don't recall reading any other post that fits such a bill. And in case you didn't realize this (not intended as sarcasm, I'm merely unsure how much attention you pay to this), gun control is indeed a HUGE political issue, one which kept Gore from winning by a clear majority in 2000 according to his people.

Does this sound familiar? It should, you just wrote it....

Yeah, pretty funny. I particularly like "vote from the rooftops." It has such a nice lone nut feel to it.

I didn't mention gun control, but that never stopped you from bringing it up out of the blue before, so why should I be surprised now?

Cthulu, how is that "publicly fantasizing about murdering ones (sic) political enemies", especially when I stated a few posts up that if there was a revolution, I was sitting it out, and only defending my house, wife, and child?

BTW, the slogans I quoted are all slogans that are found on T-shirts floating around, except that the MOLON LABE ones are in the original ancient greek.

My statement stands regardless of the backstory.

I'm not trying to imply that you really are some crazed gun nut, but some of the things that you post can be pretty offensive and overloaded (yes, I know that this is the internet). Maybe we could all use a little more perspective.

I couldn't agree more. Yikes.

Frankly, I think it's a matter of you reading what you want to read, rather than what was actually written. That's OK. I don't think "gleeful fantasy" accurately describes any post I've made here. If there was widespread civil unrest and it ended up affecting me, it would be a huge pain in my ass. I know, I've "been there, done that" before. It sucked then, and it would suck in November, regardless of how relatively well prepared I am.

Heh. Yup, the "majority" of the US wants gun control....which is why the 1994 AW ban/Brady Bill cost the Democrats control of Congress....

Actualy daswig, pan is using a strawman type of argument. I'm sure a majority of Americans want SOME form of gun control. I for one don't want convicted violent felons to be able to legally own a fire arm, by default that is a form of gun control. Its also a far cry from what a liberal would call gun control.

I'd have thought that after Clinton's 1995 SOTU address where he talked about the seats they lost in Congress because of gun control, Dems would have learned...

So you're saying that the "Republican Revolution," which had been a work in progress for politicians and think-tanks for years, was solely because of the Brady Bill and the AWB? Even I think that Newt deserves a little more credit than that.